Healthy Skepticism Library item: 1680

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Pallarito K.
Vermont bill would impose fees on drug detailers
Reuters Health 2002 Feb 25

Full text:

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Pharmaceutical manufacturers and marketers would have to pay fees for licenses to promote their drugs and would be required to disclose all gifts to healthcare providers under a measure passed by the Vermont state Senate last week.

The controversial licensing and disclosure provision, strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, is part of a larger measure that proponents say would help to make prescription medications more affordable.

Backed by State Senator Peter Shumlin, a Democrat who serves as Senate president and head of the chamber’s finance committee, the measure passed by a 29-0 vote. The legislation next moves to a conference committee to work out differences with a House bill, which does not include the licensing provision.

Vermont hopes to control the escalating cost of prescription medications through the use of lower-priced drugs and negotiated supplemental rebates. The bill would set in motion a process for developing a preferred drug list for all state assistance programs and state employees, for example.

The controversy arises over the detailing provisions.

Individuals who engage in pharmaceutical detailing, promotion or marketing would pay $400 for a two-year license from the Vermont Board of Pharmacy. Drug manufacturers, depending on annual sales, would pay as much as $5,000 for a license.

As part of the licensing requirement, drug detailers would have to disclose all gifts to or financial transactions with healthcare providers in the state. Furthermore, detailers would have to provide Vermont drug prescribers with information on less expensive alternatives, like generics.

“Vermont has really been at the forefront of trying to make needed medications available at an affordable cost to its citizens,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, an advocate of prescription drug cost containment strategies.

The legislation “will allow people who need prescription medicine to get their … medicine at a more affordable cost and it will reduce … the kind of slanted information that doctors too frequently get from the pharmaceutical industry. So I think it’s a clear benefit for consumers,” Burns told Reuters Health.

Whether the bill will clear the conference committee intact is unclear.

“I think there’s going to be a lot of pressure to have a bill and not have it die in conference,” said Cheryl Rivers, a former state Senator who now serves as executive director of the Northeast Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices.

“I think the association feels counter-detailing is important, and that it’s important to understand what the pattern of expenditures is in [drugmakers’] attempts to influence prescribing patterns,” she said.

Jeff Trewhitt, a spokesman for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), said the association opposes the disclosure requirements, which it sees as a violation of the First Amendment and the Trade Secret Clause.

PhRMA also bristles at the notion of requiring marketers to provide information on alternative products. “If the generics want to counter- detail, that’s fine. It’s a free country,” Trewhitt told Reuters Health. “But to compel our people to talk about the competition is not appropriate.”

When asked whether PhRMA would sue if the measure were enacted, he said it’s too soon to tell. “We’re not there yet,” he said. “We’re hoping that wiser heads will prevail.”